PC 070903 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Brozosky noted. that the Open Space Management Report listed the required grass height for grazing, and added that the consequences for that condition were riot described. Mr. Swift advised that overgrazing would be a violation of the Open Space Management Plan, which is incorporated into the conditions of approval He noted that as a zoning violation, the City's norn-xal enforcement procedures would be followed. Mr. Brozosky noted that Finding 4 stated that "the subdivision is physically suitable for the type and intensity of developaraent_" Fie took issue with that finding with the large amount of dirt being removed. Mary Roberts, 1666 Vineyard Avenue, noted that she shared a well with another party, and noted that the disposition of the Chrisniax~/Brozosky well affected her as a preccdent_ She anticipated having the same problem, but did not believe she would have a problem with the current neighbors. She noted that she had numerous problems with a previous property owner, and stated that the determination regarding the well should be made with respect to the property, not the specific property owners. She believed that for the developing parcel to retain the use of the well and impact the neighbor with its use could he defined as a negative amenity_ With the remuneration from the development, the developers could afford to take the water from the development, which is halfway up the hill to their house; she noted that the costs would not be as great. Alternatively, they may drill another well She hoped her neighbor would dig a separate well when they decided. to develop. Ms. Roberts advised that she agreed with Mr. Schlies' statement with respect to Zone 7 defining the drought. She noted that she had experienced a drought in her well, and that the wells were not impacted by snowfall in the Sierras_ In response to an inquiry by C7ommissioner Sullivan, Ms. Roberts believed that a drought in a well is identifiable when the pump runs dry. She added that depends on whose pump is higher in the well, which would run out faster. She noted tlxat if the pumps were side by side, they would vibrate and. knock each other out. Chairperson Arkin invited the applicant back to the podium, and the offer was declined_ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED_ Commissioner Sullivan inquired whether staff could develop an alternative way to declare a drought related to these wells_ Mr. Swift advised that when the water level in the well ran low, the C=1~risn-cans would stop using the well; at that point, it would be used solely by the Brozoskys for domestic purposes. He noted that the original PUD condition did not address that subject, and that it was fair to amplify that circumstance. He noted that every large drought in California had affected the Pleasanton area equally with the state water projects. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 9, 2003 Page 8